HC dismisses plea by horticultural officers against redeployment

Madurai: Madras high court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by assistant horticultural officers challenging their orders of redeployment under the Uzhavar Aluvalar Thodarbu Thittam (UATT) 2.0 scheme.The court was hearing the petitions challenging redeployment orders as per the GOs issued in 2025 for implementation of UATT 2.0 scheme. They stated that they are working under the horticulture department and have been deployed to the agriculture department to carry out the work of the assistant agricultural officers, which would affect their service conditions.The state submitted that under the UATT 2.0 scheme, field officers have been fairly redistributed based on the net cultivable area so that field extension activities can be undertaken in an effective manner. The GOs safeguard the administrative seniority, promotion prospects, and salary benefits of all field officers, and there is no change in the service conditions as contended by the petitioners. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the UATT 2.0 scheme was introduced with the objective of improving the contact between the farmer and the officers of the agriculture/horticulture departments, which would improve the efficiency and productivity of the farmers. It aims to provide technical assistance to the farmers through regular field visits by the assistant agricultural officers and the assistant horticultural officers.The judge observed that prior to the implementation of the GOs, the officers of agriculture and horticulture departments made separate visits to the farmers, and this resulted in inefficiency and also the duplication of efforts. Therefore, all the assistant agricultural officers and assistant horticultural officers have been fairly distributed under this scheme.The state govt has taken a policy decision to streamline the field-level visits of the assistant agricultural officers and assistant horticultural officers. In line with the above decision, some of the officers have been redeployed to other districts. "The petitioners, being govt servants, have to realise their responsibility to implement the schemes of the govt effectively by making field visits, and they cannot claim a vested right to serve in one particular place where they are comfortable," observed the judge and dismissed the petitions.